Difference between revisions of "The Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Import script) |
(Import script) |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| + | <li><b>Authorship</b> – Hashem is the author of the Torah's laws, whereas it is the king and not the deity who writes and promulgates the Mesopotamian codes. As such, when a person violates the other law codes, it is considered a crime against a fellow man, whereas when one transgresses a Torah commandment it is considered a sin against God. For the same reason, while many of the codes give the victim the right to pardon the offender,<fn>See, for example MAL 10, "If either a seignior or a lady entered a seignior's [house] and killed [either a man] or a women, [they shall give] the murderers [to the next of kin] and if he chooses he may put them to death, or if he chooses he may spare (them but) take [their property.]"</fn> in Israelite law, this is not possible.<fn>If something is an offense against God no human can forgive or pardon in His place.</fn> Finally, whereas the kings impose their law on their people, the Torah's commandments are presented as a covenant which the people agreed to</li> | ||
<li><b>Types of laws included</b> – The Torah includes not just civil law, like the Ancient Near Eastern codes, but also ethical and moral precepts<fn>This includes both laws of social justice such as caring for the less fortunate orphan or widow, and mundane acts of kindness such as returning a neighbor's lost object or helping another load their camel.</fn> and religious and cultic law.<fn>This would include precepts about sacrifices, holidays or purity and impurity. In the Ancient Near East such topics comprised their own distinct genres of literature, unconnected to the legal codes. For a more exhaustive discussion of the point, see מ. ווינפלד, "לתפיסת החוק בישראל ומחוצה לו," בית מקרא (תשרי תשכ"ד) which can be accessed <a href="http://mikranet.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=13078">here</a>.</fn> The idea of interweaving religious and secular law is unique to the Torah,<fn>See Cassuto, in his introduction to Parashat Mishpatim,and N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1996): 175, who elaborate on this point.</fn> and often laws from the two categories flow seamlessly into one another.<fn>See, for instance how the prohibition against witchcraft and sacrificing to other gods are sandwiched between laws dealing with rape on the one hand, and those dealing with concern for the less fortunate on the other (Shemot 22:15-23).</fn></li> | <li><b>Types of laws included</b> – The Torah includes not just civil law, like the Ancient Near Eastern codes, but also ethical and moral precepts<fn>This includes both laws of social justice such as caring for the less fortunate orphan or widow, and mundane acts of kindness such as returning a neighbor's lost object or helping another load their camel.</fn> and religious and cultic law.<fn>This would include precepts about sacrifices, holidays or purity and impurity. In the Ancient Near East such topics comprised their own distinct genres of literature, unconnected to the legal codes. For a more exhaustive discussion of the point, see מ. ווינפלד, "לתפיסת החוק בישראל ומחוצה לו," בית מקרא (תשרי תשכ"ד) which can be accessed <a href="http://mikranet.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=13078">here</a>.</fn> The idea of interweaving religious and secular law is unique to the Torah,<fn>See Cassuto, in his introduction to Parashat Mishpatim,and N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1996): 175, who elaborate on this point.</fn> and often laws from the two categories flow seamlessly into one another.<fn>See, for instance how the prohibition against witchcraft and sacrificing to other gods are sandwiched between laws dealing with rape on the one hand, and those dealing with concern for the less fortunate on the other (Shemot 22:15-23).</fn></li> | ||
| − | <li><b>Formulation of laws</b> – In the Mesopotamian codes, all the laws are casuistic in style, formulated as case law (if… then…). In Torah, on the other hand, alongside such laws there are also apodictic rules.<fn>This | + | <li><b>Formulation of laws</b> – In the Mesopotamian codes, all the laws are casuistic in style, formulated as case law (if… then…). In Torah, on the other hand, alongside such laws there are also apodictic rules.<fn>This point has been noted by many. See Cassuto and Sarna ibid.</fn> These are general prescriptions of what to do or not to do, without defining a specific case.<fn>An apodictic formulation would read "Do not steal" rather than the casuistic "if you steal, then you must pay a fine." An apodictic formulation is concerned with setting up principles of right and wrong whereas case law would seem to be more concerned with law enforcement.</fn> Additionally, in Torah, often commandments are accompanied by some sort of rationale or motivation for obedience.<fn>For example, see Shemot 22:20 where the prohibition against oppressing a foreigner is related to the fact that we were foreigners in Egypt. Similarly, a few verses later the Torah warns against taking a poor person's cloak as collateral on a loan overnight, since it is his only covering and "in what shall he sleep?"</fn> The equivalent is somewhat rare in the secular codes, and if it does appear, it will generally not appeal to one's historical or ethical sense.</li> |
<li><b>Context</b> – Other collections contain just a list of laws and rules, framed perhaps by an introduction or epilogue. The laws in the Torah, in contrast, are embedded into its narrative material, and in some cases are not understandable without it.<fn>See, for instance the laws of inheritance which emerge from the story of Tzelophchad's daughters in Bemidbar 27, or the laws regarding the second Passover in Bemidbar 9.</fn></li> | <li><b>Context</b> – Other collections contain just a list of laws and rules, framed perhaps by an introduction or epilogue. The laws in the Torah, in contrast, are embedded into its narrative material, and in some cases are not understandable without it.<fn>See, for instance the laws of inheritance which emerge from the story of Tzelophchad's daughters in Bemidbar 27, or the laws regarding the second Passover in Bemidbar 9.</fn></li> | ||
| − | + | <li><b>Punishments</b> – In Torah, with the exception of the slave, penalties do not differ due to the social status of the criminal/victim. In the other codes, in contrast, such social stratification is common.<fn>See, for instance CH 96-105, where the laws of battery are discussed and punishment varies depending on the rank of both the criminal and the victim. If one strikes another of the same status he is fined differently than if he strikes one of more noble stature. Contrast this with the Torah's emphasis on the fact that: "תּוֹרָה אַחַת וּמִשְׁפָּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר אִתְּכֶם" (Bemidbar 15:16).</fn> Certain penalties, such as bodily mutilation, multiple punishments for the same offense or vicarious punishment, which are frequently found in other codes,<fn>See MAL 9, 15, 19-20,and CH 194 and 205 which speak of castration, the cutting of lips, ears or breasts. See also MAL 55 which speaks of vicarious punishment for a rape, where the penalty for the rapist is that his wife is given to be raped. CH 255 similarly states that if negligent building caused the son of the owner to die, the son of the builder should be put to death. The Torah, in contrast, states, "לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וּבָנִים לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל אָבוֹת אִישׁ בְּחֶטְאוֹ יוּמָתוּ" (Devarim 24:16). Though Shemot 20 states that God is "פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבֹת עַל בָּנִים", this refers to God's justice, not what is done in human courts.</fn> are either rare<fn>Devarim 25:12 does mention cutting a woman's hand and Shemot 21:22-25 and Vayikra 24:19-20 speak of talion (an "eye for an eye.") For an extensive discussion of how these verses have been understood, see An Eye for an Eye. </fn> or totally absent from Tanakh.</li> | |
| − | <li><b>Punishments</b> – In Torah, with the exception of the slave, penalties do not differ due to the social status of the criminal/victim. In the other codes, in contrast, such social stratification is common.<fn>See, for instance CH 96-105, where the laws of battery are discussed and punishment varies depending on the rank of both the criminal and the victim. If one strikes another of the same status he is fined differently than if he strikes one of more noble stature.</fn> Certain penalties, such as bodily mutilation, multiple punishments for the same offense or vicarious punishment, which are frequently found in other codes,<fn>See MAL 9, 15, 19-20,and CH 194 and 205 which speak of castration, the cutting of lips, ears or breasts. See also MAL 55 which speaks of vicarious punishment for a rape, where the penalty for the rapist is that his wife is given to be raped. CH 255 similarly states that if negligent building caused the son of the owner to die, the son of the builder should be put to death. The Torah, in contrast, states, "לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וּבָנִים לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל אָבוֹת אִישׁ בְּחֶטְאוֹ יוּמָתוּ" (Devarim 24:16). Though Shemot 20 states that God is "פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבֹת עַל בָּנִים", this refers to God's justice, not what is done in human courts.</fn> are either rare<fn>Devarim 25:12 does mention cutting a woman's hand and Shemot 21:22-25 and Vayikra 24:19-20 speak of talion (an "eye for an eye.") For an extensive discussion of how these verses have been understood, see An Eye for an Eye. </fn> or totally absent from Tanakh.</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
Version as of 07:38, 23 January 2014
The Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes
This page is a stub.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.
Introduction
When studying the legal sections of Torah in light of their Ancient Near Eastern counterparts, one finds that there is both considerable overlap, and significant differences between the sets of codes. In terms of content, there is much that is shared. The general formulation of many laws is also similar. As is often the case, though, it is the differences between the codes which are most revealing. From the range of topics covered to specific details of the offenses and penalties, the collections vary widely. Often, these variations reflect both the different underlying values and principles of each culture, and their different conceptions of justice and punishment.
The Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes
Lists of laws have been preserved in seven major cuneiform collections - the Sumerian codes of Ur-Nammu (CU) and Lipit Ishtar (LI), the Old-Babylonian codes of Eshnuna (CE) and Hammurabi (CH), and finally, the Middle Assyrian, Old Hittite and Neo-Babylonian lists. The degree of preservation varies for each text. Some, like the code of Ur-Nammu, remain only in bits and fragments while others, like the famous code of Hammurabi, contain over 200 laws. The texts date to several different time periods. While the laws of Lipit Ishtar were composed as early as the nineteenth century BCE, the Middle Assyrian laws appear as late as the twelfth century BCE.
Points of Contact
- Common categories – Many areas of law are common to both the Mesopotamian and Biblical law collections. These include prohibitions against dishonest business dealings, false testimony, murder or rape and laws dealing with adultery, illegal entry or theft, and personal injury.
- Specific details – In many cases, though, even the details of these laws are remarkable similar. For instance, when discussing battery, the various collections contain an identical catalog of injured bodily parts: eye, tooth, hand, and leg. Both the Torah and several of the codes bring the unusual case of the striking of a pregnant woman in a brawl as the example of personal liability.1 Sometimes, too, the same extenuating circumstances appear in both sets of sources. Thus, in the case of rape, the same distinction between a city and an outlying field is found in both Sefer Devarim and the Hittite laws (197).
- Examples – Click below for two examples of many laws which bear a marked resemblance one to another:
Points of Difference
- Authorship – Hashem is the author of the Torah's laws, whereas it is the king and not the deity who writes and promulgates the Mesopotamian codes. As such, when a person violates the other law codes, it is considered a crime against a fellow man, whereas when one transgresses a Torah commandment it is considered a sin against God. For the same reason, while many of the codes give the victim the right to pardon the offender,2 in Israelite law, this is not possible.3 Finally, whereas the kings impose their law on their people, the Torah's commandments are presented as a covenant which the people agreed to
- Types of laws included – The Torah includes not just civil law, like the Ancient Near Eastern codes, but also ethical and moral precepts4 and religious and cultic law.5 The idea of interweaving religious and secular law is unique to the Torah,6 and often laws from the two categories flow seamlessly into one another.7
- Formulation of laws – In the Mesopotamian codes, all the laws are casuistic in style, formulated as case law (if… then…). In Torah, on the other hand, alongside such laws there are also apodictic rules.8 These are general prescriptions of what to do or not to do, without defining a specific case.9 Additionally, in Torah, often commandments are accompanied by some sort of rationale or motivation for obedience.10 The equivalent is somewhat rare in the secular codes, and if it does appear, it will generally not appeal to one's historical or ethical sense.
- Context – Other collections contain just a list of laws and rules, framed perhaps by an introduction or epilogue. The laws in the Torah, in contrast, are embedded into its narrative material, and in some cases are not understandable without it.11
- Punishments – In Torah, with the exception of the slave, penalties do not differ due to the social status of the criminal/victim. In the other codes, in contrast, such social stratification is common.12 Certain penalties, such as bodily mutilation, multiple punishments for the same offense or vicarious punishment, which are frequently found in other codes,13 are either rare14 or totally absent from Tanakh.
